Minimum Standards for President

1. Who is going to advise you (including your vice president)?2. What is your proposed budget?3. Who would you nominate to the Supreme Court?

The current model of president picking is a lot like buying insurance. An insurance company will only give you details about what is covered in the policy AFTER you buy it. WTF?

Presidential campaigns are like that. Why do I have to wait until AFTER a candidate is nominated to find out what sort of goober he or she would pick as a running mate? Why do I have to wait until AFTER the president is elected to find out that the only way to pay for all of the campaign promises is to eliminate education? Why do I have to wait to find out who is in the cabinet, or who would be nominated to the Supreme Court?

I realize all of these choices need to be carefully vetted. I can live with some imperfection in the system if, for example, a proposed cabinet member turns down the job, or has a skeleton in the closet. But knowing the proposed choices would tell me a lot more than I know now.

As I said in an earlier post, any candidate who supports corn ethanol is unqualified to lead the country. By that standard, we don’t have any qualified candidates for president. But the bar should be higher than that. If we don’t know who will advise them, how they plan to pay the bills, and who they would nominate for the Supreme Court, they haven’t given us the minimum information needed to support them.

Comments

I'm also from South Africa, and as was pointed out by someone earlier, our next likely president is Jacob Zuma, who was recently on trial for a bunch of crimes, including rape, corruption, fraud and other national pastimes. We know what he's like then, but it hasn't seemed to stop people from wanting to vote him into power. Go figure!

So maybe it's destiny - whether you know what the guy's gonna do or not, we're condemned to having a bunch of morons, or at least criminals, in power anyway!

1. Primary: At this time they will spin ( or lie? ) their positions to suit their party voters. Example: Democrats will position themselves more to left than they really are.

2. Presidential election: Now their speeches will be more towards the center. This is because, they know that 90% of their party will vote for them. Whoever captures the middle or "undecided" voters will win the election.

3. As president: The voted candidate will now face reality. What he/she thought could do is not practical. So, they will "spin" away from their before mentioned positions...

So, the voter really cant trust what a candidate says at any point in their career as it will always be modified for that situation. Its just the way it is and will always be in a democracy.

To become a president you don't need to be the best candidate. Like in any other competition you have to be the best in winning the election, no matter WTF you have to do. Undestand ??
P.S. How could you elect G.bush in 2004 when he already was a completely failure??? Unbelievable!! And don't say you are not guilty cause you voted democrats. Besides that you should convince other people that Bush was a mental job. Undestand???

they can't do it your way becasue politicians are supposed to hedge and not reveal answers but try to sound like they are telling you something. If any of them reveal specifics they are automatically eliminated by unwritten rule.

1) The Vice-President isn't really "chosen" by the president canidate, but by their party. 9 out of 10 cases, the answer would be "Whoever comes in a close second to me in the primaries"

2) You have a "general" idea of how budgets are going to go already. Democrats will have more public programs, Republicans will have higher military spending and tax breaks to businesses, and Libertarians will donate money towards Scientology (j/k, but its not like they'll win anyway). Few if any people would read "page 14 paragraph 6" of detailed budget analysis of 10 canidates in either party.

3) See point 2. I'm going to guess "Like minded individuals whom remind me of myself" would be the answer. Or at least "People that are like minded to the current state of my party"

You can get insurance policy information before you buy it (I just went through this). It's just really, really difficult and confusing. Even the people selling the insurance are unprepared to give you this information or adequately answer your questions.

Patti says:
LOL to JT..... Hey JT.. you keep saying, " I guarantee I would hate you in real life."
I LMAO! … "IN REAL LIFE" … How can THAT be a guarantee? First, you need to stop fantasizing about ME and my statements and then you need to "GET ..A REAL LIFE"... for yourself.

Talk about a picnic table,
Ya know, You have enough holes in your head, JT, that a whole army could screw you!

I suggest you get yourself a tongue ring and put a leash on it. THERE ARE leash LAWS ..YA KNOW!

OH YEAH, so tell me, just what do you guys do when you don't like a channel on TV? Do you piss and moan about it? Do you take the station away from others?
I do believe that you have a Napoleon complex. Maybe that is why you are not .. EVER going to be "in real life" . Or maybe you are a jackass who is braying.
It is pretty pathetic that you "hate" based on someone's format when they blog and that you don't like their humor.
PATHETIC! But then again, I SHOULD forgive you. You are not of THIS WORLD or a member of "real life"

BTW if this hurts your feelings.. just suck your thumb.... AFTER you remove it from your DUMB-ASS!
NOW THAT .... IS … FUNNY!!

Scott, get a better insurance agent, you can get that information before you buy a policy.

On point though, you know the VP nominee, you may not have names of appointees, but you must know that Bush was going to nominate conservative ones, and that Obama or Clinton will probably nominate liberal ones. And I'm pretty sure they give some sort of budget on the websites now, which of course mean nothing.

But I do agree with you, I tend not to vote for people who just say things that "sound good."

I wish more people kept track of their representatives voting record, and public stances. Its not a crazy amount of research, and you can see how many people smile for the camera, then vote the opposite anyway.

I heard someone once say "Politics is primarily Hollywood for ugly people".

Once I came to realize that most politicians are just actors playing a part, it becomes easier to stomach the lies, half-truths, and blatant stupidity. What they say in public and what they do in public have as much in common as ducks and accordians.

I agree with ur Minimum Standards for President, but it may be in practically infeasible when u factor in the possibility of a collation government where it is bit difficult to predicate which party get which portfolio………..

I live in South Africa. Jacob Zuma, the newly elected president of the currently ruling ANC party(and thus next in line for president of SA if ANC wins again) is most famous for his public statement that you wont get AIDS if you take a shower after having unprotected sex.

Running Mate: Disagree. The best choice is often the candidate they beat in the primary.

I agree with your other two criteria, but you missed the most important one? How will they defend the country? We take our security for granted -- we need to stop living in the pre-9/11 fantasy world...

However, since our society runs on "people voting themselves bread and circuses" (complements of Robert Heinlein), it isn't a rational society focused on the "good of the many outweighing the good of the few or the one" (courtesy of Star Trek)
---
I thought the complement of Robert Heinlein (or rather one of his books, as he is now brown bread) would be a good dose of LSD or something. Sorry to be pedantic.

Interesting to see you use the word goober for a candidate's mate. In Hindi, "gober" (pronounced go ber) is cow dung (or as you better know bull shit). To add, gober has many uses like:
- Lighting the hearth
- Strengthening the walls
- Fertilizer